17) Reservations about creating a UJM online profile

August 12th 2013

Reservations about creating a UJM online profile

Although the first few paragraphs of this statement do not appear relevant to begin with, please take the time to read this letter fully, as hopefully once read in its entirety, all will become clear.

There is a line of reasoning that suggests that the 'Patriot Act', would take precedence over the 'Data Protection Act', in a court of law, however with regard to the 'Patriot Act' having judicial priority over the 'Data Protection Act 1998'.

I would argue the following..

The 'Patriot Act' is an American law.
Therefore it does not apply to citizens residing in a foreign nation.

In my comprehension, a foreign entity (The U.S Government) amassing unrestricted access to the personal details of a foreign sovereign entities citizens (U.K Citizens), through Monster inc, is an act or terror/war. Thus i would argue that the 'Patriot Act' then does not have precedence over the 'Data Protection Act' and that the 'Data Protection Act' affords me protection from this terrorist activity that is occurring.

I do not refuse to use online methods of looking for work, I use such methods for searching for work, including but not limited to the UJM website, local newspaper and from time to time third party sites. However i have not and as far as i can will not create an online profile as i will not wilfully surrender my rights afforded me under the 'Data Protection Act 1998', even if mandated by U.K law, as i believe the said law firmly contradicts, that which is laid out in the Data Protection act, and for the peripheral reasoning i have aforementioned, believe it would be unreasonable and wrong for me to comply.

The fact that this is being imposed as a mandatory condition, is in my opinion in direct conflict with the act. The fact that the company being used by the government to execute this mandation is an American one, which has been proven to be compromised by the NSA (U.S government), would mean that by rendering my information and complying with U.K law.(The creation of an online profile) I would in essence be aiding and abetting the intelligence services of a foreign sovereign state, I believe the charge for which is treason.

Because of this logical dilemma i would have to say that for the benefit of the people of the U.K I will have to wilfully break the lesser of the 2 laws (not maintain an online profile), in order to do what's right. Either that or be given the opportunity to create/maintain an online profile with my respective state (the U.K government) only, and not a third party corporation.

I refer to Lavabits founder Ladar Levinson's quote recently to affirm this insecurity. He recently shut down his company (Specialising in encrypted e-mails) after 10 years of trading, under concerns that it was no longer secure.

"This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States."

- Ladar Levinson (Lavabit founder)

Source :- The Guardian newspaper
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/09/lavabit-shutdown-snowden-silicon-valley
Email service used by Snowden shuts itself down, warns against using US-based companies
www.theguardian.com

    RS likes this.
    Dan Kinobi To whomsoever it may concern,

    This is official notification that a claim for judicial review and an application for an injunction has been lodged with the Administrative Court Cardiff as of 19th June 2013. (Claim no : CO/7681/2013)

    Due to the matters in dispute and the injunction sought, officers, agents, servants or others of the Secretary of State may not issue a direction, amend the jobseekers agreement or make demands or impose penalties in regard to registration with Universal Jobmatch.

Non-compliance with notification may have serious legal consequences.
12 August at 14:43 · Like
   
Dan Kinobi :- Although the test-case above that is currently pending would appear to address"Data Protection Act" breaches,

    My concerns/reasoning are/is not identical to the aforementioned case, in that there are additional considerations, that would merit, should so be required, their own distinct judicial review, in my opinion.

    Signed

    Dan J***

Name Redacted 8/10/15

Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151623903036089